Posted on 03/09/2007 6:44:43 PM PST by LdSentinal
Periodically, I get e-mails from supporters of the presidential candidacy of Alpine Rep. Duncan Hunter who express disbelief, befuddlement or fury, or a mix of all three, at my flat contention that he is a populist demagogue and anything but a principled conservative. These folks cannot fathom any talk that he's not free-trade, small-government Ronald Reagan reincarnated.
Here's a typical example of Hunterista reaction to my comment that he's been against trade deals that have been important boons to our economy:
You're supposed to be a columnist, an informed person. This is not an informed statement.
OK. If you don't believe me about Duncan Hunter's RRRINOitis, here's what the influential, admired-and-respected-in-conservative-circles Club for Growth has to say about him:
Like most Republicans, he's strong on tax cuts, but he's been part of the big government spending spree of the last 6 years. He also has a protectionist streak in him. Here are some of the more troubling votes:
NO on NAFTA YES on No Child Left Behind YES on Sarbanes-Oxley YES on the 2003 Medicare Drug Benefit NO on CAFTA YES on 2005 Highway Bill YES on the 527 bill (like most Republicans, he flip-flopped, having first voted NO on McCain-Feingold) Hunter also went 0 for 19 on the Flake anti-pork amendments.
Despite being a member of the Republican Study Committee, Hunter frequently votes NO on their fiscally conservative annual budgets (2006, 2005, 2003...)
We gave him a 49% on the 2005 Club for Growth scorecard. That places him 187th within the House GOP conference, out of roughly 230 members.
National Taxpayers Union shows a more telling trend. He was strong in the early 1990s, getting "B's" and one "A", but as time went by, like most politicians, his score dropped. For the past few years, he's been getting "C's".
Those Cs are incredibly generous. As CATO noted last year, with Duncan Hunter cheering him on ...
... President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson. Even after excluding spending on defense and homeland security, Bush is still the biggest-spending president in 30 years. His 2006 budget doesn't cut enough spending to change his place in history, either.
Total government spending grew by 33 percent during Bush's first term. The federal budget as a share of the economy grew from 18.5 percent of GDP on Clinton's last day in office to 20.3 percent by the end of Bush's first term.
The Republican Congress has enthusiastically assisted the budget bloat. Inflation-adjusted spending on the combined budgets of the 101 largest programs they vowed to eliminate in 1995 has grown by 27 percent.
The GOP was once effective at controlling nondefense spending. The final nondefense budgets under Clinton were a combined $57 billion smaller than what he proposed from 1996 to 2001. Under Bush, Congress passed budgets that spent a total of $91 billion more than the president requested for domestic programs.
And as bad as things are on the budget front, they're about to get a whole lot worse because of a pending nightmare that Duncan Hunter -- supposed tough guy, supposed truth-teller, supposed fiscal conservative -- has chosen to ignore. To borrow from what I wrote last year ...
... the single worst problem facing this country in coming years, with the possible exception of nuclear terrorism, is dealing with the massive fiscal impact of baby boomers retiring. As we slowly transition from a nation where there are 4 working adults for every adult getting Social Security and Medicare to a nation where that ratio is 2 to 1, we will face an incredible fiscal squeeze.
As a veteran member of Congress, Duncan Hunter knows this. He's heard the warnings, seen the bipartisan studies. So what did this self-declared fiscal conservative do in 2003? He voted to make the problem much, much, much worse by extending prescription drug benefits to seniors, three-quarters of whom already have coverage. The money that was saved by all the triumphant stands he claims to have taken is infinitesimal compared to the staggering long-term national debt he helped add with this one vote, which was tantamount to civic arson.
Yeah, right, our Duncan's a fiscal conservative. ... He loves spending your grandkids' money, and by the truckload.
Duncan Hunter is no Ronald Reagan. To those who say Ronald Reagan really wasn't Ronald Reagan -- that government didn't get smaller when he was president -- well, he tried harder than any president in modern times to get Congress to control spending and wipe out whole government agencies. By contrast, Hunter and the GOP Congress of 2001-2006 kept the national credit cards hanging on a string around their necks for easy and constant use.
"On spending and Campaign Finance Reform, Hunter is a liberal."
Exactly.
I wonder why he didn't vote on the Terri Schiavo bill?
Huh. Rudy, Duncan. Duncan, Rudy. Whatever. Same thing.
I wonder how Fred Thompson stacks up?
..where is that debate Wednesday?
good grief
Your attitude is one reason why our children and grandchildren are going to be royally screwed.
from Drudge: Thu Mar 1 2007 13:41:11 ET
U.S. COMPTROLLER: PRESCRIPTION DRUG BILL 'MAY BE THE MOST FINANCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE LAW IN 40 YEARS'; Bill Will Add $8 Trillion to Long-Term Medicare Obligations
That Could Already Bankrupt the U.S.
The U.S. government's top accountant says the law that added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare may be the most financially irresponsible legislation passed since the 1960s. U.S. Comptroller General David Walker says Medicare -- barring vast reform to the program and the nation's healthcare system -- is already on course to possibly bankrupt the treasury and adding the prescription bill just makes the situation worse.
I place national security before any kind of spending.
If we are hit, you can't take your 401Ks with you.
Most bean counters have national security way down on their list and don't have the experience and background Hunter has in this area.
We all hate the Hildebeast here.
I am from NY, saw Rudy's leadership firsthand during 9/11 and before that I witnessed NYC transformed from a dangerous liberal cesspool run by Demonrats to a shining city brought back from the dead.
The success of Rudy post-9/11 has more to do with what the man did for the city beforehand rather than his televised activities after the attacks. One need just look at New Orleans after Katrina to get a glimpse of what socialist dependance does to a city in turmoil.
A lot of the dirt on Rudy is due to his needing to run left to win in NYC. I still remember the night he beat Dinkins in '93- I was absolutely elated as my grandfather passed in 1991 and was so disapponted when Rudy lost in '89.
Mark my words- Rudy is a liberal's worst nightmare. The despise him. He will fight them more than you can imagine and certainly more than any Washington GOPer (RINO or not) will ever dream of.
Republicans have not seen a fighter like this in our lifetime.
"Political conservatism is a movement open to both religious and irreligious and is based on how one views the role of government more than anything. Economic freedom is one of its central tenets, as is taming the federal leviathan, and Duncan Hunter misses the mark on both counts."
BUMP!
Give it a rest. Start your own anti war thread and make yourself feel good.
There is no comparison between the crime rates under Dinkins and under Giuliani. Under Giuliani the major crime rates were not just reduced, they were drastically reduced. The murder rate was 2,400 the year he took office. It went down to 960. His Democrat enemies love to give the credit to Dinkins and say that Giuliani merely rode the wave of a national decrease in the murder rate. All Giuliani haters seem to use the same arguments against him. Also, the violent crime rate is rising dramatically under RINO Bloomberg. BTW, I'm not a Rudy for Prez supporter. I'm undecided. I don't share his Liberal views on guns, abortion and many other issues.
"No candidate is perfect - politicians spend money (gasp!)."
That is no excuse when we have brave statesmen like Mike Pence who have been trying to cut back on spending. "Everybody does it" simply does not go over well with me.
So you contend that our anti-terrorism strategy should consist of plopping down hundreds of thousands of troops in the middle of the Islamic "bee hive" and keeping them there indefinitely, so as to distract the terrorists and keep them busy killing our soldiers instead of our civilians. How many decades and how many lives do you think it might take before this brilliant strategy exhausts the global supply of Islamic radicals? How long might it be before the terrorists get smart, grow weary of killing our soldiers in their backyard, and return to killing civilians in America? How long might it be before this strategy ends up with us having bitten off more than we can chew?
Now Mike Pence is a Congressman I could get behind very easily. Unfortunately he has no intention of running.
And, sorry we missed CAFTA's big birthday by a few days, so we'll just have to wish a happy belated birthday to CAFTA today. You'll recall all the opposition to this pact, even though it would open markets to US manufacturers large and small. No matter, the facts were swept up by the protectionist rhetoric swirling around the debate. But one year later, it's clear that the anti-trade sentiment was (once again) misplaced.
Secretary Gutierrez hit on some of these facts when he spoke to the NAM Board, but they bear repeating:
Here's a link to a pretty good Bloomberg story that lays out the many benefits that have emanated from CAFTA. It's important to keep all this in mind when the protectionists come 'round again, as they most surely will.
We'll say it again: Trade agreements open markets to US-manufactured goods. It's why we support 'em.
There is a difference between judging a candidates voting record and judging a candidates personal views. One is substantive and clearly relates to performance. The other is speculative and not predictive necessarily of performance.
It is the country club Republicans who are looking for a CEO.
I want someone who can win this war and that is Hunter with years of military and national security background.
You picked this fight. Not I.
When I weigh the pros & cons of each of the candidates - Duncan Hunter comes out on top for me, there are other issues that are important to me as well. I'm not excusing the spending - I don't like it, but there are other things about the other candidates that I don't like even more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.